Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.

475 A.2d 1192 (1984)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.

Maryland Court of Appeals
475 A.2d 1192 (1984)

Facts

Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (Greenbelt) (plaintiff), a Maryland corporation, operated the Greenbelt Housing Project. In 1976 Raymond and Marguerite Burgess applied for Greenbelt membership and disclosed that their daughter, Lynn Kuhr, and her son were going to reside in the unit. The Greenbelt board of directors approved the Burgesses’ request. The mutual-ownership contract noted that unit occupancy was only for cooperative members and their immediate families. Greenbelt could terminate the contract for any violations. Kuhr and her son moved into the Burgesses’ unit, and sometime later, Richard Searight, an unrelated adult male, also moved into the unit. Neither Kuhr nor the Burgesses sought a waiver of the family-members-only occupancy limitation. When Greenbelt learned of Searight’s presence in the unit, it advised Kuhr and the Burgesses that they were in violation of the occupancy rule and urged them to comply. Four months later, when the matter was still not resolved, Greenbelt notified the Burgesses of a board meeting at which they could explain why their contract should not be terminated. Before that meeting, Kuhr notified Greenbelt that Searight would be vacating the unit, and he did—against his and Kuhr’s will. But before Searight vacated the unit, Kuhr filed a housing-discrimination complaint with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations (MCHR) (defendant) and alleged that Greenbelt discriminated against her based on her marital status in violation of a state antidiscrimination law. A hearing officer determined that there had been a breach of the ownership contract and dismissed the action. MCHR’s counsel appealed, and an appeal board reversed and ordered Greenbelt to stop discriminating against Kuhr. MCHR declined a request to vacate its decision, and Greenbelt filed suit. The trial court granted Greenbelt’s motion for summary judgment after concluding that the state antidiscrimination law had not been violated. MCHR appealed, and before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals could rule, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cole, J.)

Dissent (Davidson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 798,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership